Carbon Footprint of Milk Processing—Case Study of Polish Dairy

Abstract

Sustainable milk processing is essential to minimize negative environmental impacts. The purpose of this study was to determine the carbon footprint (CF) of the production of milk products in an industrial plant in Poland. Annual production and technological processes were analyzed, and relevant parameters were determined, as well as the method of data collection according to the chosen method of analysis and the developed database. It was found that each process is a source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and affects the CF of the product. The total carbon footprint of the production of milk products was 0.367 kgCO_2eq/kg. The average GHG emissions associated with production came mainly from indirect emissions (electricity consumption) and accounted for 50% of the total emissions. The determined relationship between the CF and monthly production volume also allows production planning in the context of sustainability. An increase in the monthly production volume by about 12% results in a reduction in the carbon footprint by about 18%. Decarbonization of dairies is possible through the use of renewable energy sources. Determining the CF of milk processing is the first step toward reducing GHG emissions, improving the sustainability of the sector and aligning with global trends and regulations.

1. Introduction

One of the most versatile and valuable foods is milk [1,2]. The content of individual components in milk varies, depending on its origin [3]. It is characterized by a unique chemical composition and properties that make it an essential part of the diet of many people around the world. Milk is the basic raw material necessary for the production of many dairy products, such as cheese, yogurt, butter and cream [4,5].

Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from milk production would benefit the image of dairy farming. Absolute emission reductions are becoming a priority, especially in terms of achieving zero GHG emissions by 2050 [6], given the guidelines set by the European Green Deal [7], as well as the Fit for 55 package [8] and the RePower EU plan [9]. The dairy sector has the potential to transition to a low-carbon economy through mitigation measures. Among the most relevant are proper and efficient feeding, manure and fertilizer management, on-farm energy use, and animal health and tillage. Dairy farms are very diverse, both in terms of land use, soil characteristics and farm management [10]. Therefore, GHG emission reductions should be considered for each farm individually. Widespread adoption of mitigation measures will require investment in research and knowledge transfer, as well as the farmer’s willingness to adopt and implement it. Farmer incentives should be the motivator, accelerating the acceptance and implementation of new solutions.

Beginning in 2025, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) [11] for 2024 corporate sustainability reporting will come into effect for businesses. Companies will be required to report non-financial information, including ESG (European Sustainability Report) reporting [12], taking into account the carbon footprint (CF). The CF is based on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) environmental methodology, which was originally used to analyze industrial process chains, but was adapted more than 20–30 years ago to assess the environmental impacts of agriculture, including dairy production [13]. LCA analysis systemically includes the inputs and outputs of a specific product or production system, such as a dairy farm, a dairy processing plant or an entire dairy production system. Existing guidelines for CF calculations can be divided into three types [13]: i. general CF guidelines such as ISO [14,15], GHG protocol [16], PEF general guidance [17] and PAS 2050 [18]; ii. dairy-specific guidance such as IDF [13], dairy PEFCR [19], LEAP (large ruminants) guidance [20] and dairy EPD [21]; iii. guidance for specific parts of the CF such as IPCC AR6 [22], other GWPs and emission factors in agriculture, and C-seq guidance on carbon sequestration [23].

The second directive is the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDD) [24] on corporate sustainability due diligence. It assumes that major players in the market will analyze all links in the chain of a given company’s activities covered by the new regulations. For Polish companies participating in European trade, this means that their partners will have the right to see the results of the organization’s or product’s carbon footprint. This is due to indirect emissions [25] created in the supply chain (at the Polish manufacturer) affecting the final result of the foreign customer’s carbon footprint.

Among the studies conducted on calculating the CF of cows’ milk production [26,27,28,29,30,31] outside of Poland, the studies that conducted a literature review on the LCA from 19 countries [26] and 71 dairy farms (in Ireland, Northern Ireland, England, Spain, Portugal and France) [27] are worth highlighting. The LCA model was a modified version of the model used by [32] to assess the CF of dairy farms in different regions, taking into account environmental conditions and feeding strategies. A literature review also made it possible to analyze the CF of milk in different regions of the world, and the details are shown in

Table 1. Carbon footprint of milk production in the world.

Study Characteristics (Region and Methodology)	CF Value	Factors of Influence on CF	Source
- in Italy - LatteGHG program	no data available	- milk production efficiency - herd size - manure management system	[34]
- in Australia - life cycle assessment	1.11 kg CO2eq/kg (for 2009/2010)	- production practices - feeding system - manure management practices	[35]
- in the Azores archipelago - OpenLCA application—IPCC	0.83 kg CO2eq/kg	- emissions from enteric fermentation - feed production - use of fertilizers (organic and mineral)	[36]
- in the southern region of Brazil - LCA SimaPro 7.3.3 software—ISO 14040: 2006 [14] and ISO 14044: 2006 standards [33]	0.535 kgCO2eq/kg for a closed system, 0.778 kgCO2eq/kg for a semi-closed system, 0.738 kgCO2eq/kg for a pasture-based system	- livestock breeding system	[29]
- for the Canadian dairy industry in 2001 - Fossil Fuel for Farm Fieldwork Energy and Emissions model—IPCC	1.0 kgCO2eq/kg	- breeding and production method	[37]
- in Ireland - life cycle assessment	1.50 kgCO2eq/kg/year	- 49% enteric fermentation - 21% fertilizers - 13% concentrate feed - 11% manure management - 5% electricity and diesel consumption	[38]
- in northern Spain - life cycle assessment	0.9–4.7 kgCO2eq/kg, 1.22 kgCO2eq/kg—semi-enclosed 0.99 kgCO2eq/kg—pasture farms	- by-products - livestock feed - electricity - diesel - cleaning elements - transportation, manure and slurry management - cattle feeding system	[39]
- in Japan - life cycle assessment	0.972 kgCO2eq /kg	- feed production and feed transportation - animal management (including biological activity of the animal) - waste disposal - dairy cattle breeding system using rice silage	[40]
- in the Netherlands - life cycle assessment	1.81 kgCO2eq/kg	- land use - energy consumption - farming system	[41]

. The CF was related to methane emissions from enteric fermentation, emissions from manure management, feed production and fertilizer use. GHG variability between countries means that mitigation options must be tailored to each specific region and management strategy. It was found that various methods were used to determine the CF of milk production, including those in accordance with the IPCC [22], LCA [14] using OpenLCA software, as well as methodologies harmonized with the ISO 14040:2009 and ISO 14044:2009 [14,33] standards for life cycle assessment. The International Dairy Federation guidelines and International Standard for Life Cycle Assessment standards were also used. The analysis ranged from “cradle to farm gate”, which allows the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions associated with different stages of milk production.

The CF plays a key role in assessing GHG emissions from various production processes in the agri-food sector. In Polish conditions, the application of LCA methodology, from “cradle to grave”, showed that milk production was associated with emissions of 0.94 kgCO_2eq per kg of milk, ranging from 0.79 to 1.15 kgCO_2eq in different regions [42]. The milk yield of cows results in a reduction in GHG emissions. The lowest CF has been reported with rearing optimization for yields of 7000–9000 L of milk per cow [43] but, beyond a yield of 10,000 L, the CF of milk increases due to excessive feeding. The CF analysis of raw milk production was extended to include only the cheese-making process [39]. The results showed that the CF of cheese was from 14.7 to 16.6 kgCO_2eq/kg for pasture-based and semi-enclosed systems, respectively. Raw milk production was responsible for more than 60% of GHG emissions associated with cheese production [39].

A literature review on the CF of milk from different regions of the world enabled an in-depth analysis and comparison of the CF by area of origin. In the world and also in Poland, the detailed results of these analyses make it easier to understand the factors shaping the milk CF at the global level only concerning farming. In the literature, there are no data on the structure of GHG emissions in dairy processing plants, and the sources of GHG emissions are not the same as those of dairy farms. Therefore, our study pointed to the need for a more detailed analysis of milk processing in dairy plants, also in Poland. The obtained results of the study can provide an important starting point for conducting a comprehensive assessment of the CF throughout the life cycle of dairy products. Such an approach allows for a detailed understanding of which stages of milk production and processing, especially in dairy companies that generate the largest GHG emissions, from transportation of milk, milk processing and transportation of finished products. It is worth noting that the results obtained from assessing the carbon footprint of a single company can provide sufficient objective evidence of the carbon footprint of dairies in Poland.

This article provides a basis for research planned for the future. Further research will include an in-depth analysis of emissions at the level of individual farms, differentiated by size, production technology and resources used. This will enable the development of recommendations tailored to the specifics of Polish farms, which will facilitate the implementation of practical solutions and reduction technologies. Further research is also needed to understand what climate benefits can be achieved through measures such as sustainable feed production, the use of feed additives that reduce methane emissions, or the introduction of energy recovery technologies on dairy farms. Conducting such studies in the future will not only provide a more accurate estimate of the carbon footprint of dairy products, but also provide a solid basis for developing national and regional decarbonization strategies for the agri-food sector.

The aim of this research was to assess the carbon footprint of dairy products at Polish dairy plants, with the goal of identifying key sources of GHG emissions and developing practical recommendations for the dairy sector. The aspiration is to support emission reduction efforts in the processing sector, increase production efficiency, and contribute to national and global climate goals. The article stresses that the work that has begun is only a prelude to the more detailed and advanced research that is needed to create a complete picture of the Polish dairy sector’s carbon footprint.

2. Research Material—Production of Milk and Milk Products in a Dairy in Poland

Milk production is a complex process that involves several key steps with special production equipment (Figure A1). The study object was a medium-sized dairy. Production at the facility per unit weight in 2023 was 5,403,911 kg. Each of the production stages is crucial to ensuring the high quality and safety of the final product, which is milk and milk products. The analysis was conducted on the basis of information received from representatives of a dairy products plant. The plant produces a wide range of dairy products including milk, cream, sour cream, fermented beverages, cottage cheese, butter and lactose-free products. Their importance in the total production volume is also evident in the results shown in Figure A2 and Figure A3, which illustrate the shares of each product in the plant’s total production. The raw material for production is fresh cow’s milk. Raw milk is purchased from dairy farms in two provinces. The milk must meet certain requirements. The aforementioned farms follow good agricultural practices and good breeding practices without GMOs. Raw milk from the company’s own raw material base is used for production, with no milk being diverted. Buying is carried out with the company’s own means of transport (tank trucks). The products of the analyzed dairy cooperative are packaged by machine and by hand. In turn, all stages of production should also be optimized in terms of environmental impact. It is important to know the scale and scope of these impacts as well as possible in advance, so that informed decisions can be made effectively to minimize negative environmental impacts.

3. Methodology

Calculating the CF of milk production and processing is a multifaceted task that requires a comprehensive assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across all stages of the production chain. The CF represents the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, both direct and indirect, associated with the life cycle of a product, process or technology. The methodology for calculating the CF adheres to guidelines outlined in internationally recognized standards, including the 2023 IPCC Report on Climate Change [44], the GHG Protocol [16], and ISO standards such as ISO 14040 [14] and ISO 14044 [33].

The study conducted a thorough examination of the technological processes involved in milk production and processing, developing detailed diagrams to map each stage of the production chain. This analysis facilitated the establishment of the measurement boundaries, the functional unit and the scope of the CF assessment. A methodology for the CF calculation was designed to encompass all stages of the product’s life cycle within the organization, following approaches applied to other industries as well. The use of standards and the allocation method provide accurate and comparable results, which are key to identifying opportunities for the optimization and reduction of GHG emissions. In the analysis, the functional unit is 1 kg CO_2eq per kilogram of milk products. Detailed principles of the carbon footprint analysis and methods of calculating CF values, included in relevant normative documents [14,16,33,44], are described by:

$${CO}_{2eq}=GHG·{GWP}_{GHG}$$

(1)

$$CF=\sum _{i=1}^n{\left({CO}_{2eq}\right)}_i+\sum _{j=1}^m{\left({CO}_{2eq}\right)}_j$$

(2)

where

• ${CO}_{2eq}$—is the equivalent emission volume [kg CO_2eq];
• GHG—emission volume of a given greenhouse gas [kg];
• ${GWP}_{GHG}$—GWP value of a given greenhouse gas [kg CO_2eq/kg GHG];
• $CF$—carbon footprint of a product [kg CO_2eq/kg product];
• ${\left({CO}_{2eq}\right)}_i$—direct emission volume from the i-th source expressed in CO_2eq [kg CO_2eq/kg product];
• ${\left({CO}_{2eq}\right)}_j$—indirect emission volume from the j-th source expressed in CO_2eq [kg CO_2eq/kg product].

The following areas were included in the limits of the analysis by means of formulas:

• Transportation of raw material: transportation of milk to the diary;

  $${\left({CO}_{2eq}\right)}_{iDiesel}=V_D\times I_D$$
• Processing at the diary: the processing of milk into milk products;

  $${\left({CO}_{2eq}\right)}_{jelectricity}=E_{el}\times I_{el}$$

  $${\left({CO}_{2eq}\right)}_{iDiesel}=V_D\times I_D$$

  $${\left({CO}_{2eq}\right)}_{iLPG}=V_{LPG}\times I_{LPG}$$

  $${\left({CO}_{2eq}\right)}_{inaturalgas}=V_{naturalgas}\times I_{naturalgas}$$
• Delivery to the customer: transportation of milk products to points of sale.

  $${\left({CO}_{2eq}\right)}_{iDiesel}=V_D\times I_D$$

  where

• $V_D$—volume diesel [L];
• $I_D$—parameter for diesel—emissions of GHG in CO₂ equivalent value per diesel liter [kg CO_2eq/L for diesel];
• $E_{el}$—electricity consumption [kWh];
• $I_{el}$—parameter for electricity—emissions of GHG in CO₂ equivalent value per kWh [kg CO_2eq/kWh];
• $V_{LPG}$—volume LPG [kg];
• $I_{LPG}$—parameter for LPG- emissions of GHG in CO₂ equivalent value per LPG kg [kg CO_2eq/kg for LPG];
• $E_{naturalgas}$—natural gas consumption [kWh];
• $I_{naturalgas}$—parameter for natural gas—emissions of GHG in CO₂ equivalent value per kWh [kg CO_2eq/kWh];
• ${\left({CO}_{2eq}\right)}_{idiesel}$—direct emission volume from diesel expressed in CO_2eq [kg CO_2eq];
• ${\left({CO}_{2eq}\right)}_{iLPG}$—direct emission volume from LPG expressed in CO_2eq [kg CO_2eq];
• ${\left({CO}_{2eq}\right)}_{inaturalgaz}$—direct emission volume from natural gas expressed in CO_2eq [kg CO_2eq];
• ${\left({CO}_{2eq}\right)}_{jelectricity}$—indirect emission volume from electricity expressed in CO_2eq [kg CO_2eq].

Key elements of the methodology included defining protocols for gathering and analyzing data related to production volumes, energy sources and GHG emissions. Direct emissions (e.g., fuel use and refrigerant losses) and indirect emissions (e.g., electricity usage, supplier activities and transportation) were considered. The analysis used source-specific conversion factors:

• 2.66 kg CO_2eq/liter for diesel [45],
• 1.56 kg CO_2eq/kg for LPG [45],
• 0.2 kg CO_2eq/kWh for natural gas [45],
• 2.04 kg CO_2eq/m³ for natural gas [45],
• 0.685 kg CO_2eq/kWh for electricity [46].

A database was created to facilitate the systematic calculation of the CF, ensuring accuracy and traceability. Using the collected data, CF calculations were performed and subsequently verified for reliability. The results of the analyses highlighted the most emission-intensive stages of milk production and processing, providing a clear understanding of areas where reductions could be achieved. This research serves as a foundational framework for future work, enabling targeted strategies for GHG mitigation in the milk production sector. The results of the studied plant will be used to build an evaluation model in other companies, but under certain restrictive conditions.

An analysis of the GHG emissions reduction was carried out by calculating the share of electricity from renewable sources. The total consumption of grid electricity and electricity generated from photovoltaics was recorded, and the amounts of monthly reductions as a percentage were determined.

4. Results and Discussion

After analyzing the technological processes, an assessment was made of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with production and transportation at the plant. To determine the carbon footprint of production, the main focus was on the consumption of energy carriers.

The production volume data for 2023 are detailed in Figure A2. The analysis showed that the shares of assortments in each month vary throughout the year. This is due to the organization of production and customer demand. Among various dairy products, curd has a dominant position in production. This product is the key assortment of the plant, which indicates its significant importance, both in the production structure and in the company’s revenues. Next in the production structure are milk, country yogurt and cream. Their importance in the total production volume is also evident in the results shown in Figure A3, which illustrates the average shares of each product in the plant’s total production. Data on production and consumption of energy carriers were collected in the database (

Table A1. Database report—summary data on production and emission sources at the plant in 2023.

Month	Production	Electricity	Natural Gas	LPG	ON
Unit	kg	kWh	kWh	L	L
January	416,550	103,431.00	330,439.00	258.50	7688.60
February	388,967	94,428.00	320,237.00	258.50	7170.25
March	505,845	114,512.00	358,439.00	258.50	7997.51
April	450,982	112,652.00	315,728.00	258.50	7994.25
May	510,984	135,875.00	319,905.00	258.50	8100.79
June	500,502	145,840.00	272,973.00	258.50	7389.29
July	486,703	140,068.00	250,821.00	258.50	7808.44
August	442,342	139,888.00	248,449.00	258.50	7524.71
September	436,556	133,001.00	246,329.00	258.50	7735.92
October	480,893	121,623.00	301,624.00	258.50	7925.91
November	419,069	108,141.00	342,315.00	258.50	7498.10
December	364,519	104,303.00	348,140.00	258.50	8135.40
Total	5,403,912	1,453,762.00	3,655,399.00	3102.00	92,969.17

). Data on direct emissions were adopted from the database [45], while electricity was adopted according to the report of the KOBiZE [46].

Based on the consumption data of energy carriers (Table A1), GHG emissions were calculated (

Table 2. GHG emissions [kgCO_2eq] from analyzed sources for 2023.

Month	Natural Gas	LPG	ON	Electricity	Sum
January	66,087.80	759.8	20,451.68	70,850	158,149.50
February	64,047.40	759.8	19,072.87	64,683	148,563.30
March	71,687.80	759.8	21,273.38	78,441	172,161.70
April	63,145.60	759.8	21,264.71	77,167	162,336.70
May	63,981.00	759.8	21,548.10	93,074	179,363.30
June	54,594.60	759.8	19,655.51	99,900	174,910.30
July	50,164.20	759.8	20,770.45	95,947	167,641.10
August	49,689.80	759.8	20,015.73	95,823	166,288.60
September	49,265.80	759.8	20,577.55	91,106	161,708.90
October	60,324.80	759.8	21,082.92	83,312	165,479.30
November	68,463.00	759.8	19,944.95	74,077	163,244.40
December	69,628.00	759.8	21,640.16	71,448	163,475.50
Total	731,079.80	9,117.90	247,298	995,827	1,983,322.70

) and the percentage of each source for the plant was determined, and this is shown graphically in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The average production-related GHG emissions came mainly from indirect emissions (consumption of electricity, necessary for the operation of production equipment and lighting of the premises) and accounted for 50.21% of total emissions. Direct GHG emissions from the combustion of natural gas (for space heating and water heating and process steam generation) accounted for 36.86% and from diesel fuel for vehicle transportation accounted for 12.47%. In contrast, direct emissions from liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) consumed to power forklifts are insignificant, accounting for 0.46% of total emissions.

Taking into account the results obtained, the carbon footprint for each month in the analyzed year was determined (Figure 3). The determined carbon footprint of production in terms of unit weight was 0.340–0.448 kg CO_2eq/kg, and the average CF (CF_AV) was 0.367 kg CO_2eq/kg. It was found that raw milk production was responsible for more than 60% of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with cheese production [39]. In contrast, under Polish conditions, it was shown that milk production was associated with emissions of 0.94 kg CO_2eq/kg of milk over the entire product life cycle [42]. Taking these data into account, it was estimated that the production processes in a dairy generate a carbon footprint of about 0.56 kg CO_2eq/kg of milk. Comparing the literature data with the analyzed facility, it was found that the calculated parameter is 0.367 kg CO_2eq/kg, and the literature data report [39,42] a higher one of about 50%.

It was found that there was a correlation between the carbon footprint of production and the months (Figure 3). In addition, a relationship was found between the carbon footprint and monthly production volume. An equation describing this relationship was determined (Figure 4). This makes it possible to also plan production in the context of sustainability, i.e., minimizing the CF of the final product. An increase in the monthly production volume by about 12% results in a reduction in the carbon footprint by about 18%. However, in the case of planning sustainable production, the indicator on how a 1% increase in production reduces the carbon footprint equals about 1.5%. The reason could be unused capacity, seasonality in production or seasonality in energy consumption. In addition, another reason could be that there are processes surrounding manufacturing that affect the energy intensity of overall production.

The company has begun implementing a decarbonization process. Their first action was to use renewable energy by launching photovoltaics. Thus, the reduction in GHG emissions associated with the use of photovoltaic panels to generate electricity used in production was analyzed, as shown in

Table 3. Data to calculate the reduction in GHG emissions [kg CO_2eq] (associated with the electricity required to produce dairy products at the plant in 2023) through the use of renewable energy.

Month	Production of GHG Emissions from Electricity	Emissions from Renewable Energy Sources
January	158,149.5	397.30
February	148,563.3	1043.94
March	172,161.7	1904.30
April	162,336.7	3211.28
May	179,363.3	5198.47
June	174,910.3	5076.54
July	167,641.1	5121.06
August	166,288.6	3776.41
September	161,708.9	3492.13
October	165,479.3	1363.15
November	163,244.4	782.27
December	163,475.5	292.50
Total	1,983,322.7	31,659.33

. The analysis shows that the average annual GHG emissions for 2023 due to the operation of the photovoltaic system decreased by about 31.7 tons CO_2eq, which is about 1.60% of total emissions. More measures are planned in this direction to minimize the product’s carbon footprint.

Poland is one of the largest milk producers in the European Union (EU). In 2022, on-farm raw milk production in the EU was estimated at 160.0 million tons, while in 2023, milk production in Poland was 12.9 billion liters [47]. The raw material base of the dairy industry is based on individual suppliers, who produce more than 11 billion liters of milk annually. Milk production in Poland over the 2012–2021 period showed an upward trend. The volume of cows’ milk production in 2018–2021 was at the level of 13.7 billion to 14.4 billion liters (Figure A4). Considering the data for 2023, it is possible to estimate GHG emissions from milk processing, which averaged 4.73 billion kg CO_2eq.

5. Conclusions

Climate change remains one of the most important environmental challenges that requires the involvement of government, business and industry. In the face of this challenge, many industries are struggling to estimate and reduce GHG emissions. In particular, food processors see the need to precisely calculate GHG emissions related to production systems and products themselves. To this end, the carbon footprint must be precisely determined. Minimizing the negative impact of dairy production on the environment is possible by planning sustainable production, while supporting animal welfare and ensuring an appropriate economic situation for farmers. The aim of this research was to assess the carbon footprint of dairy products in Polish dairy plants in order to identify key sources of greenhouse gas emissions and develop practical recommendations for the dairy sector. This effort aims to support actions to reduce emissions in the processing sector, increase production efficiency, and contribute to the implementation of national and global climate goals. Milk production is a complex process covering several key stages. CF calculating and processing is a multifaceted task that requires a comprehensive assessment of GHG emissions across all stages of the production chain. The CF represents the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, both direct and indirect, associated with the life cycle of a product, process or technology. The most important conclusions from the research are:

• It was found that in the analyzed plant, the average GHG emissions related to production came mainly from GHG emissions:

  -

  direct from combustion:

  • natural gas (for heating rooms and water heating and generating process steam) is 36.86%,
  • diesel oil (for road transport) is 12.47%,
  • liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) (for powering forklifts) is 0.46%,

  -

  indirect (from electricity consumption) is 50.21%.

• The determined carbon footprint of production was 0.340–0.448 kg CO_2eq/kg, and the average CF_AV was 0.367 kg CO_2eq/kg.
• A significant relationship was demonstrated between the carbon footprint and the monthly production volume, which allows for planning production in the context of sustainable development.
• An increase in the monthly production volume by about 12% results in a reduction in the carbon footprint by about 18%. However, in the case of planning sustainable production, the indicator on how a 1% increase in production reduces the carbon footprint equals about 1.5%.
• Reducing the carbon footprint is possible through the use of renewable energy sources (e.g., photovoltaic panels).

These studies have already provided valuable information that can be used by both producers and policymakers to develop emission reduction strategies in the dairy sector. GHG emissions associated with the dairy industry are influenced by various sources, including:

-

intestinal fermentation of cows (methane emissions),

-

milk processing (indirect emissions—energy consumption in processing plants),

-

refrigerated storage of dairy products (direct emissions of refrigerants, indirect emissions—energy consumption),

-

transportation of milk and dairy products (direct emissions from fuel combustion and refrigeration).

The results of the studies described in this article should become an incentive for extensive research and implementation activities in the Polish dairy sector. By continuing this work, it will be possible to develop effective tools and strategies to support dairy farms in their transformation towards sustainable and low-emission food production, which will also contribute to reducing the impact on climate change. The data obtained indicate the need to focus in the future on key areas such as resource efficiency in cattle breeding, reducing methane emissions from the digestive tract of animals and optimizing processes related to manure management. Carrying out a full assessment of the carbon footprint throughout the product life cycle requires taking into account additional aspects, such as emissions related to energy production and consumption in dairy farms and processing plants, logistics and distribution of products, as well as emissions generated during the use and disposal of packaging. This type of analysis, based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, allows for a comprehensive approach to the problem and identification of the most effective reduction actions.